Dave Long wrote:
> I am sorry I've been salting wounds. You have certainly convinced
> me that some portion of your losses is impacted by a convoluted tax
> code, you just haven't convinced me that your acquisition terms and
> the subsequent underperformance* of a single security impacted them
> more directly, and more substantially.
Yeah, this is probably my own fault --- I have been bobbing and weaving pretty
haphazardly between my own situation, the irritation it causes me, the
problems there, the more general problems this has pointed out in the tax
system, etc. The backdrop for this whole conversation has been a world of
completely unnecessary minutiae I've been drowned in over the last two weeks
due to needing to get taxes ready to go. It's *way* beyond me --- and I feel
like I've already done superhuman things to ascend the learning curve. :-/
Pretty hard to be objective about things.
> I thought someone who advocates a lack of food safety regulation
> and /caveat emptor/ would also accept the application of /caveat
> investor/ in parallel situations,
I wholeheartedly agree --- caveat investor always, to the end. I just think
that gov't, taxes, and gov't interference in markets should generate a minimum
of their own caveats. This is probably the biggest issue where you and I
differ --- while you seem to think the existing caveats in that regard are
reasonable, I... just don't.
> but am happy to put this horse
> out to pasture; perhaps it'll be livelier when it comes back in.
> Back to generalities:
> I have two major issues with the transaction tax system:
> - it is skewed in favor of savings, which is just as bad
Well, strictly speaking, it needn't be. The last thing I suggested as a mod
to Russell's T-tax is that it be applied generally, even on deposits...
Checking out your analysis, perhaps more later.
But thanks, and apology accepted though not necessarily.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 20:25:29 PDT